Wednesday, November 25, 2015

(Yet Another) Open Letter to the RCA

To Whom It May Concern,

I honestly understand why members of the Rabbinical Council of America were compelled to make another public statement on the matter of female clergy. Although I may not have done the same, I definitely get it. However, I feel compelled to write to you about one bothersome aspect of the most recent resolution.

I personally lack the knowledge, erudition, or authority to discuss the validity of semicha for females. However, I have been a Jewish educator for a number of years and your resolution directly addresses the world of chinuch. As the resolution states:

Therefore, the Rabbinical Council of America... Resolves to educate and inform our community that RCA members with positions in Orthodox institutions may not...allow a title implying rabbinic ordination to be used by a teacher of Limudei Kodesh in an Orthodox institution

This passage does not directly bar women with semicha from teaching in Orthodox institutions, but has that effect; would a woman with ordination apply for a job that requires delegitimizing something she worked so hard for?

As an experienced Jewish educator, please permit me to voice an opinion about female rabbis teaching in Orthodox institutions.

A career in Jewish Education is not considered the most prestigious or realistic path for today’s Orthodox professionals, both male and female. As a result, many talented individuals avoid the world of chinuch, leaving a vacuum often filled by those less fitting for the job. These circumstances alone should encourage Orthodox institutions to expand their pool of potential hires. This alone should discourage excluding candidates due to title or training. However, I’d like to add another consideration.

Encountering the myriad ways my students relate to religion has fostered within me a greater appreciation for religious flexibility. Our Torah is a Torat Chayim, resonating differently within each individual Jew. To paraphrase the Gemara in Masechet Berachot, our students are as disparate in psyche as in looks. Without a sense of adaptability, this discrepancy could result in the loss of a Torah lifestyle for many. As such, there exist greater concerns for chinuch than the defending the parameters of Orthodoxy (itself a non-halachic construct) and reinforcing the policies of a specific rabbinic organization.

But where to draw the line? The ultimate decision should belong to school leaders. Every institution has a unique set of stakeholders, and what is best for one group may not be best for another. Schools should always be concerned with potential candidates communicating certain core values to students. However, it should be left to each institution to ensure its hashkafot aren’t being compromised. If a particular Orthodox institution feels compelled to be maximally cautious with their values, let them be clear about what those values are with allpotential candidates. Let each school determine its own comfort with hiring a Maharat, Yoetzet, or female with another title. This is the place for significant influence from local Rabbonim, locally, not in setting educational policies for Jews across the country. (Just to reiterate, my qualm here is with the educational policy, not with the RCA discouraging female ordination.)

Barring RCA members from hiring females with ordination will not immediately hurt the world of Jewish Education. But I do think it presents a message that is a bit out of touch. Our schools are fine with keeping to Orthodox tradition and most students are aware of what is “Orthodox” and what is not. Our students need dedicated teachers who love what they do above all. Closing the door to those who do not fit the classic definition of Orthodox sends the wrong message. While there must be a distinction between what is ideal and what is practical - what is l’chatchila and what is b’dieved - chinuch is not the place for that distinction. I would think that m’chanchim and practicing Rabbonim, confronted by the living nature of the Torah on a constant basis, would appreciate this idea. I wonder what percentage of those voting in favor of the resolution were professionals with semicha, as opposed to teachers and rabbis.

If I had any influence, I would urge the RCA to be transparent about the demographics of who voted in favor of the current resolution. Not every member of the RCA has should have their opinions revered equally. For the sake of honesty, you owe it to the Orthodox community (yes, I do believe you owe it) to be clear here. Second, I would urge the RCA to reconsider the clause in the resolution that sends a message to the Orthodox community about priorities in chinuch. I respect the work that each of you do on behalf of Klal Yisrael, and please take this letter as a respectful disagreement.

16 comments:

Anonymous
said...

While I am a person who likes to see both sides of the argument, and accept where your point is coming from, I respectfully disagree with many points in the piece written. I most certainly know that his is coming from an emesdika place and respect everyone's opinion, I would like to voice my opposition to some aspects. Again, when I read your piece I had an open mind and was open to seeing your opinion. I hope you have the same courtesy when reading mine and other opinions.

This is a very polarizing issue (obviously), but I would respectfully disagree with you on a few points.1. I do not agree that Careers in Jewish education are "not considered the most prestigious or realistic path for todays Orthodox professionals". Nowadays there are numerous amounts of men and women getting accepted into Ivy League colleges and graduate programs, who choose to opt out and instead become Jewish leaders. Sometimes they even do both. Jobs in Chinuch have become less accessible and more desired. The "stigma" of being a mechanech , especially in the modox world has significantly decreased, if not almost disappeared. Additionally, if one wanted to argue that the stigma has not gone away, should those who oppose rabbinic ordination for women compromise and hire individuals that don't have similar values, just because there may be a chance that one of those ordained women may or may not be slightly more fitting for the job. I believe that hashkafic values many times is one of the most important criteria in chinuch. Love for torah, benei yisrael and yiddeshkeit are the most important items in chinuch, especially when you mention keeping kids on the derech and instilling love for the Ribono she olam. So to say that other women or men may not be as fitting is not a fair statement, in what way are they less fitting? in hashkafa? Torah? energy? There are so many factors and there are many many women out there who do not have ordination, looking to become jewish leaders and teachers, enough that we do not have to compromise our's and our childrens hashkafa to items that are halachikly questionable. (this is obviously talking to someone who is not for the ordination of women, this directly speaking to your point about being limited in our resources for teachers.) Therefore I do not think we need to compromise. Finally, on this point there is a teshuva from Rav Moshe, that talks about holding a religious position in a conservative shul ( whether a Rabbi or teacher in Hebrew school) Rav Moshe is very against it because it could look like we are encouraging the conservative movement. While I am not necessarily comparing Open orthodoxy to conservatives (some do make that comparison), it would be giving credence to rabbinic ordination of women, and therefore we should probably not hire them even if they may or may not be more fitting. (Again this is under the assumption that you are not saying women should be ordained) I believe Rav Moshe goes so far to say that even if there is a chance you may be mikarev a child you should still not teach at a conservative school.

2. Another point I disagree with is, I do not believe that such, clearly, major issues should be solely based on those who run the school. Are those who run the school, such great poskim? Do we not have major figures in every type of orthodoxy to go to with these issues. I’m not saying the head of a modern orthodox school should go to the dayan of belz or any other chassidus or yeshiva, but we do have our major poskim in each sect, and with such major issues they should be consulted. Are we to bend our principles and blurry halachick or haskafic issues to our “clientele” the students. Since when does shmiras hamitzvos yiddeshkeit do that. Yes we have chanoch lanar al pi darko, but that does not mean we compromise on our halachik and very strong hashkafik mesora. There is room to be meikel in certain places obviously, but basic guidelines still exist and it seems that rabbinic ordination of women may be one of those guidelines, and if it is that is not to be compromised, because some student and parents don’t agree (because it doesn’t feel right, and “it’s not fair”) we should make decisions that affect everyone vbased on the torah and that of our rabbis, and if women should not be ordained, we don’t bent to peer pressure. Chinnuch is so very important and we must keep guidelines clear so that our kids will not be put in the middle of this fight. Chinnuch and halachik/haskafic mesora go hand in hand

I appreciate the respect you have given my opinions and I of course will accord your opinions the same respect.

To start, my first argument is not predicated on their being a good-teacher crisis. That was to add more force to my argument about priorities in hiring, namely that teaching talent and love for the job need to come before "is this person classically Orthodox?"

Secondly, I am not arguing for any school to compromise its values. I am arguing that a) Openness and tolerance are values as well and b) hiring someone who doesn't completely fit what the school stands for is not necessarily a compromise in values.

A Zionist school might hire a teacher with anti-Zionist opinions based on their teaching pedigree and just make it clear (as they should with all candidates) what the school's values are, and therefore which ideas can be preached/taught/discussed, and which can't.

It's important to remember we are taking about women who's only "crime" is getting ordained. If every single one of their other values are classically Orthodox, are they really such a threat? Is it so terrible for students to call them Rabbah? There are no "Hilchos Orthodoxy" and therefore no rule that says everything that happens in an Orthodox school must be completely within what most Orthodox Jews and rabbis are comfortable with.

Would you call a Conservative rabbi "Mister" if he came to present about a charity he runs or if he was hired to teach chemistry? It's good to teach kids about nuance too, and that's really my point.

If there were a gentile in your imaginary world who was particularly adept at teaching torah, conversant in shas and poskim, and most importantly incredibly effective in making Orthodoxy attractive to your children would you seek that teacher out as your son's 3rd grade rebbe?

Gentiles make up a specific halakhic category as do heretics. There is no halakhic category called "non-Orthodox," or, more fitting for our case, "not classically Orthodox." You should be asking about a Conservative rabbi. And I definitely could imagine having a Conservative rabbi teach in an Orthodox school, but that would have to be decided on a case by case basis depending on a number of idiosyncratic factors of the school in question, and by discussing with a local rav who knows the score at that school.

Not a halachik ssue, but a halachik category. There are many halachot related to relationships with gentiles that I assume can easily be extended to teaching (the issur to teach Torah to a non-Jew comes to mind). None such laws exist in terms of relating to those who aren't classically Orthodox.

Either way, I would likely not hire a gentile to teach Torah although I likely would a Maharat. I think the distinction should be intuitive, and I'm not up for enumerating all the ways in which a gentile as a teacher of Torah is problematic (even from a non-halachik standpoint). I think making a case for decreeing a blanket prohibit non-Jews from teaching Torah is much easier than doing so for a Maharat.

I am also not making a statement about who I would and wouldn't hire. I am arguing that it should be up to school leaders with the input of the local Rabbis who are involved in each school and understand the needs of the clientele.

Regarding the question of who has the right to make hashkafic decisions - it will always remain a matter of opinion. There is no way to come up with an answer to the question, b/c the answer is itself a hashkafic decision. And in my opinion, whether or not to hire a Maharat does not require consulting a gadol (however that is defined). It requires taking the input from all appropriate sources (including speaking with local rabbonim who understand the specific school in question) and making an informed decision.

There is also a big difference between deciding based on what is best for a certain group of people and "bending our principles" to make our clientele happy. The former uses the concept of Torat Chayim - that the Torah was given in a way that can be appreciated by a diverse Am Yisrael - while the latter is a compromise and cheapening of the Torah. I would never suggest just giving in to what people want.

Thanks for your answer. I'm operating with a scenario in mind that wouldn't present a halchic issue of teaching Torah to Non-Jews (using any of the many possible heterim). The fact that you were unable to articulate what your opposition would be and instead used the cop-out rationale that the problem would be "intuitive" is in direct contrast to the points you made throughout the post. Orthodox Jews felt (and most still do) for hundreds (thousands?) of years that "intuitively" having a woman be a rabbi is as equally anathema to the religion as having a gentile be a rabbi.

I decided to draw parallels between the Maharat and a gentile but it might be more appropriate to ask about the following examples of Jews and how you would react to their being your child's teacher. (Alternatively, if you want to exclude your own children from this discussion then if you had no children would you be opposed to any of the following teaching Torah in your local orthodox day school:

A) A heretic (someone who denies that the Torah was given on Sinai)B) A rabbi who was recently prosecuted for white collar crime(s)C) A homosexual rabbi that lives with his male partner

All of the above examples these would be pedagogical masters who would have a profoundly positive effect on their students. As you've said with regards to looser standards: "many talented individuals avoid the world of chinuch, leaving a vacuum often filled by those less fitting for the job. These circumstances alone should encourage Orthodox institutions to expand their pool of potential hires. This alone should discourage excluding candidates due to title or training." I would argue that tax-cheats, homosexuals , and heretics should be included in this expanded pool.

Obviously you feel that "it should be left to each institution to ensure its hashkafot aren’t being compromised. If a particular Orthodox institution feels compelled to be maximally cautious with their values, let them be clear about what those values are with all potential candidates." Therefore, I'm only referring to institutions that would not have their values compromised in hiring these teachers. If there's a great homosexual rebbi out there for my son then my guiding principle would be "Our schools are fine with keeping to Orthodox tradition and most students are aware of what is “Orthodox” and what is not. Our students need dedicated teachers who love what they do above all. Closing the door to those who do not fit the classic definition of Orthodox sends the wrong message." Although in a perfect world I would want a rebbi that has not gone to jail "While there must be a distinction between what is ideal and what is practical - what is l’chatchila and what is b’dieved - chinuch is not the place for that distinction. I would think that m’chanchim and practicing Rabbonim, confronted by the living nature of the Torah on a constant basis, would appreciate this idea."

I just hope that you don't respond that these examples are far-fetched. Sadly, the white collar criminal example plays itself out constantly in areas where schools' "hashkafot" are in no way "compromised" by the existence of the criminal and many "orthodox" institutions already have individuals teaching torah who are heretics according to every rishon's definition of the term. I would guess that even if no orthodox school in New York has an openly homosexual rebbi then we are less than 5 years away from that being the topic du-jour.

To start, I am assuming that the people to whom the RCA is talking would easily choose an ordained woman with mostly classical Orthodox views over having a non-Jew teaching their children. I am still going to refrain from explaining that distinction, not because I am unable, but because I don't want to waste my time on that.

I will happily address your other examples, at the risk of falling into the trap of being judged by my conclusions instead of my arguments.Before I start, I would point out that these are theoretical cases. Therefore, anything I say is in regards to whether the candidate's "uniqueness" invalidates them automatically. A "yes" doesn't mean I would jump to hire them without taking their flaws into account.

To start by answering in short: No, no, yes. The untrustworthiness of a criminal and the pervasive nature of heresy make them invalid candidates immediately. The rabbi practicing homosexuality is a tougher call, but I would say that the complicated nature of the sin, combined with its isolated nature (practicing homosexuality isn't not generalizable to rejecting all authority), would allow me to consider him as a candidate.

This is all assuming that the students, parents, and community are ready for something like this. My argument is against the RCA making a global declaration.

Sorry about the delayed response. You're money quote is "[w]hile there must be a distinction between what is ideal and what is practical - what is l’chatchila and what is b’dieved - chinuch is not the place for that distinction." You have backed that assertion up in your support/understanding of there being a place in the Orthodox world for female rabbis and homosexual rebbis.

Since this is your blog I guess its your place to make the rules such as "thou shalt avoid judging by conclusions and not arguments." Most lawyers- and really anyone who uses logic to determine anything- realize that in discussing X, analogizing and drawing comparisons to Y, sharpen the focus of what one really feels about X.

It seems that your entire argument is premised on the possibility that female rabbis MIGHT be a halachic problem but NEVERTHELESS may have a place in talmud torah. I'm not sure why untrustworthiness of a candidate makes them ineligible for a position teaching Torah but not having fealty to halacha is fine.

As far as the heretic and tax-cheat go I can't imagine how someone with such open and pluralistic views would be so narrow and restrictive simply because a different area of halacha is being violated (albeit not a trendy or in-vogue violation to defend in 2015).

I fail to see how the heretic would not fit your framework. I don't even know what "[t]he pervasive nature of heresy" means or how it would be a sufficient basis, according to your framework, for the RCA to issue a global anti-heretical Bible teacher statement.

a) I have no problem with using conclusions to help sharpen what I think. The risk is coming to a conclusion that has already been rejected by those involved/listening in, which in turn ends the discussion in an unproductive manner.

b) Your comments about lack of fealty toward halacha and your viewing tax-evaders and heretics through a purely halakhic lens shows that we are likely coming with totally different assumptions about the nature of halakha.

I don't believe a female Rabbi should be assumed to lack fealty toward halakha just because they are taking an approach not countenanced by most (all?) Orthodox poskim (let's also not forget, "Orthodox" is not a halakhic concept). They definitely are utilizing a more flexible/liberal approach, which can be a cause for concern, and therefore up to each school to consider in their decision. Most people have "unfortunate" leniencies in the way they practice things (I would assume you do as well - no offense), it's just that some are more public.

If you view halakha as being the ultimate system of morality and above classic moral categories, then yes, there is no difference between a heretic and a white-collar criminal (and someone who talks during Magen Avos for that matter). I do not ascribe to that approach, and therefore, can talk about some things being worse and more problematic than others. A heretic has all their opinions tainted by rejecting the fundamentals of Torah Judaism, and is therefore not fit to teach. A criminal simply lacks trust, and is therefore not someone I would hire for any job.

If you are going to argue for viewing female clergy like heretics and having rejected Torah fundamentals, I'd suggest reading this: http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2015/12/innovations-in-orthodoxy.html That argument is just as liberal in its definition of heresy.

I don't mind if my accountant is a sexual deviant and I don't mind if my dentist is a heretic. I DO mind if my children's halacha or talmud teacher care ignorant of or consciously ignore the entire halachic history until the 1970's. I would rather my children not be taught torah than be taught by someone who's views on torah are severely flawed. You, in theory, don't.

I honestly don't know if there's anything else to say because I think the thousands of visitors reading this exchange can see exactly where our feelings lie.

You are correct about this being a good time to end the conversation, but you are not correct about our nekudas hamachlokes. I do not believe that an ordained woman automatically has a severely flawed Torah outlook. (I'd also be curious as to what this concept of "halachic history" is.) To anyone who assumes the opposite, I of course would advise not to hire. I would just leave it up to each school. (Is it fair to assume that you would not recommend a school to hire me, or do I get a pass b/c my opinion is an extra step removed?)

So your life experiences, natural tendencies, and learning has brought you to one set of assumptions, and mine to another. Although we could debate the level of deviancy involved in ordaining women, I'll leave that for those more knowledgable than I to discuss on world-renowned famous forums such as this comments section. Thanks for helping me sharpen my opinions, and I hope you found this conversation constructive as well.

About Me

I teach limmudei kodesh in the MO school system. I'm one of those "cool young Rabbis" who isn't really cool and isn't really a Rabbi. However, I have the secret power to trick teenagers into thinking I'm cool by using my taste in music and sense of humor. I can also trick them into thinking I'm a Rabbi, but that's easier.